User talk:User1wiki

Welcome!

Hi User1wiki! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing!

Edit warring

You recently made an edit on the Chabad article, removing a paragraph of sourced information. That is already problematic. Then after I reverted your edit, you repeated it. The right thing to do when an edit of yours is reverted, is to discuss on the talkpage, and explain your point of view there. Please understand that on Wikipedia all editors are equal, and when you try to change something, you should make sure there is consensus for your change. In this case, it should be evident to you by now, that there is no consensus for your edit. In view of that fact, you should really discuss and not try to push through your edits by force. To discuss, you can open a talkpage discussion here. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User1wik1's response

Debresser, I don't understand, there has to be a consensus for my version but not yours? You added information that's not sourced at all, it's Posner's opinion. While he has the full right to think that way, for you to put it as objective fact is disingenuous at best.

I'm new to this, so I'm not sure if I'm posting my message to you the right way and if I'm following all the complicated rules here. here. User:User1wik1 11:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of obtaining consensus is in this case on you, for two reasons: 1. you are proposing to change a version that was stable for a while, which implies that it had consensus. 2. you are removing sourced information, and that is not something that should be done without good reason.

Please explain why you see reason to doubt this information. I am a Chabad adherent myself, and see nothing wrong with it. Debresser (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I see you opened a talkpage disucssion, which is the best place to discuss this, so I will go there. Please disregard my comments here. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Chabad, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User1wik1's response

I removed a biased opinion disguised as fact. It is very unprofessional of Wikipedia to just put back a cynical opinion of an individual without looking into this.

November 2020

Your recent editing history at Chabad shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Kindly inform me how to notify someone that his personal opinion disguised as objective fact is inappropriate for a Wikipedia page and is very bad behavior. How do I do this in a way that will please you? User1wiki 12:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop sniping at other editors. Make your point by reference to sources, and stop personalizing disagreements. If this recurs, you'll be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: And if they just ignore me and continue to force their biased opinion on a Wikipedia page as "fact". What then? User1wiki 12:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're attacking people instead of making a case for your changes, and edit-warring to try to get your way. Use the talkpage to explain why you want to change the article, and treat people with respect. Acroterion (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I tried. Debresser isn't interested in hearing someone else's perspective. He ignored all the points that I made and is sticking with forcing his biased opinion on a Wikipedia page disingenuously disguised as fact. So what now? User1wiki 12:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in anyone's views but your own? If you say "biased" one more time you'll be blocked.We all have biases, make your case without accusing other editors of bad faith. Acroterion (talk) 00:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I see you enjoy threatening people. On another note, I just added some edits to make it objective with both side's opinion but he removed it. Are you interested in having a Wikipedia page with different opinions, or do you want to have only Debresser's opinion? User1wiki 3:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Debresser currently appears to be engaged in an edit war; that means that he is repeatedly changing content back to how he thinks it should be, when he has seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the "dishonest" assertion in your edit summary. Debresser does not get to change words and keep on going. Acroterion (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: There aren't "editors" (plural) that disagree with my edits, just one person who's forcing his cynical opinion on the page as "fact". I used to think that Wikipedia wanted only objective and factual information on its pages, not personal opinions disguised as such. Users like Acroterion @Acroterion: and @Debresser: Debresser have demonstrated very clearly that this isn't the case. User1wiki 10:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for persona; attacks after being warned. You're continuing the behavior for which you were blocked. Wikipedia isn't a battlefield on which you must win. I will remove access to this talkpage if you won't stop attacking other editors. Acroterion (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: I'm not attacking anyone. I'm trying to explain why I needed to edit the article in question, what issues I was trying to address, and what the other parties are doing to undermine my efforts. User1wiki 23:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read your previous paragraph? Acroterion (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion: Indeed. Seems like I'm being muzzled in not being able to explain what's being done to ruin a Wikipedia page by forcing personal opinions on it. Unfortunately there's nothing more I can do at this point so I guess problematic content will stay on the Wikipedia page. User1wiki 23:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Please see UTRS appeal #37567 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: It's a big shame. I used to think Wikipedia was the gold standard of unbiased objectivity and factual accuracy. Sadly, it's evident that this is far from true, thanks to people like Acroterion, Deepfriedokra and Debresser who silence, castigate, and get rid of people who try to balance out a biased and one sided Wikipedia entry that's dishonestly disguised as "objective fact". As a result, your bad behavior is causing many unsuspecting readers to be misinformed. Obviously this isn't the place for people like me who value honesty and objectivity over personal agendas. This is what we have come to...

I've extended the block and removed talkpage access, since User1wiki keeps refactoring block notices to continue to attack Debresser and others who has interacted with User1wiki, even as the original block expiration was imminent. If anything like this happens again after the block expires, the next block is likely to be indefinite. Acroterion (talk) 14:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]